Dismissed

Shardul Madhukar More v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2014ABA/862/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced charges under Section 307 IPC following a fatal assault. The court cited the applicant's criminal antecedents and prior preventive action taken against him as grounds for rejection, declining to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant not released on bail.

Shardul Madhukar More Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

902.ABA862_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 862 OF 2014

¶5

Shardul Madhukar More … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Ganesh Iyer i/b. Ms. Neetu R. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 17^th July, 2014.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Application is moved by the applicant/accused for

¶10

anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr. P.C. as the applicant/accused and co-accused are facing charges under section 307, 364, 506(ii), 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 82 of 2014 at Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai. On 6^th April, 2014 when the applicant/accused and complainant and their family members and other persons in the village have gathered to celebrate religious function, there were verbal altercations between the two groups. On 7^th April, 2014 also there was again altercations between the parties. The applicant/accused and co-accused threatened the complainant Pravin Govind Kadam. Co-accused Sagar More assaulted him with bamboo on his head and forehead continuously. Thereafter

¶11

the applicant/accused and his father assaulted the complainant with fist and kick blows on his stomach and forehead. They threatened him

¶12

1 Of 3

¶13

902.ABA862_2014

¶14

that they wanted to finish kill and created terror. Due to assault, complainant became unconscious and then he was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter he gave the FIR.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the family of complainant and family of applicant/accused are on cross terms. The present case is registered at the instance of the police against the applicant/accused and co-accused. He submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent and he was not present at the time of incident. The applicant/accused has not committed any offence. No specific role is attributed to the applicant/accused in the FIR. Earlier this Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Madhukar Rama More by an order dated 16^th May, 2014. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.

¶16

Learned APP while opposing the Application relied on the papers of the investigation. She submitted that the applicant/accused is brother of the arrested accused Sagar. He has criminal antecedants. One case is registered against the applicant/accused and his brother at C.R. No. 177/2012 under section 307 of Indian Penal Code at Chunnabhatti Police Station. The police have also taken preventive action under section 110(g) of the Cr. P.C. The learned APP submitted that the applicant/accused is responsible for creating terror in the vicinity. Hence, the Application be rejected.

¶17

2 Of 3

¶18

902.ABA862_2014

¶19

Perused the FIR and the papers produced by the learned APP. There was no criminal antecedants against Madhukar More, father of the applicant/accused. However, it appears that the applicant/accused is having criminal antecedants as pointed out by the learned APP and prevention action under section 110(g) was taken against him. His name is mentioned in the FIR. An act of assault is also attributed to him. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. Hence, the Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶20

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶21

3 Of 3

Shardul Madhukar More v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shardul Madhukar More v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Krishna Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Waman Bomble Vs Mahadu Rama Bomble and Ors.

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Umashankar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra